I know exactly what you're saying Wence, I've gone face to face with hardcore believers and they always manage to trivialize the points that I bring up. From what I understand, my parents or grandparents must have done something so bad that god punished them by giving my innocent sister brain damage. Sounds fair to me...they did something bad so torture the kid for the rest of her life. That's the god that's supposed to love us all.

Again, not too hard: get a young pair of T-rexes, and they'll fit. Also, there are not "millions" of species unless you count them the way those evolutionists do, declaring every tiny genetic variation a new species. By their standards, you and I are a different species unless we're twins or something. The pairs in the ark were from every kind of living animal, not every tiny variation.

As with most ignorant atheists, you obviously never actually read the Bible. As a matter of fact, Genesis is very clear that incest was not wrong in days before the Mosaic law. Abraham, the father of the Jews, is even quoted saying on two separate occasions that Sarah, his wife, was his half sister. In ancient times, people were different.

A. Shorten your ranting. We mere mortals don't have infinite patience. Quit being such a troll.

B. You apparently refuse to believe that humans are inherently evil, or that Satan exists, even in the face the very evidence you've just given for both. Instead, you put the blame on God. Then you go out and do all kinds of evil yourself, as all of fallen humanity does. That's why I always suspect an ulterior motive of people who cite the problem of evil as an excuse for rejecting God: blaming God for the evil that you and others like you are doing is disingenuous.

C. If God did keep all of this evil from happening, he'd pretty much be stripping every human of his free will, which is a horrendous crime itself. I should mention that a specific group of God-hating "trans-humanists" (atheists, of course) are planning to commit this very crime against you, me, and everyone else as soon as they develop the technology. Think carefully (for once) before you answer: would you really like to be reprogrammed so that you have no choice but to do good? This isn't entirely a rhetorical question anymore, you know!

I'm quite certain that if everyone were forced to do good, we would solve every one of the problems you mentioned and a lot of them that you didn't, because there'd be nothing to impede research into how to fix every problem humanity has. I've seen evils every bit as terrible as you've mentioned and worse. Nevertheless, I prefer the cruel world we have to the plastic perfection we might have if those trans-humanists ever get their way. Think about that.

D. The Bible specifically says that not all suffering comes from anyone's sin. John 9:1-5 gives a specific example, and the whole book of Job in the Old Testament gives a more extreme one.

E. God made this universe, and hence knows all of its workings better than anyone else. You're in no position to tell God what would or would not be a better way to run things. If I were you, I'd be more humble in the face of such a powerful mystery.

Wence, if you encourage odinn7 in his trolling, you have no right to my respect or anyone else's. Behave yourself.

Is this an awfull lot like what happened last time someone brought up ETs?

Incest: Universally taboo, however, definition of such varies over time. Sex between parents and children is the only thing that has always been considered incest. The defintion broadened long ago to include siblings, and very, very recently to include even cousins (not universal yet).

I think that only a fairly small subset of creationists would argue that dinosaurs were not extinct by the time of Noah. I'm tempted to go too far here and declare them all to be a subset of the young earth creationists, who, IMHO, are heretics, since saying that Scripture is true is just another way of saying that it and objective reality, as it is observable, are in agreement with each other. The character of a trickster god who plants fake fossils, varies the speed of light, etc, in order to make the universe appear older than it is, is not consistent with the character of the God revealed in Scripture. In any case, the way in which geneologies are presented in the Bible makes it pretty clear that they're not supposed to be used to measure how many years transpired between since a certain anscestor; Sometimes they describe say, nine generations between A and B, while elsewhere a more complete geneology is given. It's torturing these to use them as a dating system that makes them appear contradictory, IMO.

The Bible dosen't actually say that every speicies was represented on the ark, just every "kind". Those could concievably have been very broad categories (two rodents, two non-domestic ungulates...). I personally find it very unlikely that penguins would have been included, or that God would have inundated Antarctica in order to get rid of all the wicked people, who may have all been living at the bottom of the Mediteranian basin at that time.

>Again, not too hard: get a young pair of T-rexes, and they'll fit. Also, there are >not "millions" of species unless you count them the way those evolutionists do, >declaring every tiny genetic variation a new species. By their standards, you >and I are a different species unless we're twins or something. The pairs in the >ark were from every kind of living animal, not every tiny variation.

Of course, many animals require very different climates to survive. The needs of penguins are very different from those of an alligator. Then there's the fact that all these animals would eat several hundred pounds of food a day. All of which makes a lot more sense if you look at from the point of view of someone from that time period who probably only knew of maybe 20-30 different types of animals, all of which were common to the areas where they lived, so that's all they figured would be needed on the ark. Then you have the question of whether just two animals is enough to repopulate an entire species. People of the time would have figured it was, but now we know that without enough genetic diversity, a species won't survive. Of course that's overlooking the fact that 40 days and nights of rain, even a constant downpour would never be enough to raise the water level over the top of every mountain in the world and if it was, everyone on the ark probably would have suffocated due to the thinness of the air at that altitude. More facts which wouldn't have been known to the human authors of the Bible at the time.

Furthermore, why would an all-powerful god need to have a human save the animals for him and use a flood to kill everyone else? Why not just snap his gingers and wipe the world clean except for Noah and his family? Surely, that's well within God's power, right?

>As with most ignorant atheists, you obviously never actually read the Bible. As a >matter of fact, Genesis is very clear that incest was not wrong in days before the >Mosaic law. Abraham, the father of the Jews, is even quoted saying on two >separate occasions that Sarah, his wife, was his half sister. In ancient times, >people were different.

So "right" and "wrong" aren't absolutes and what's ok today might be wrong tomorrow? By the same token, maybe what was wrong a few thousand years ago is ok today. Maybe the people who claim that times have changed enough that most of the ten commandments no longer apply aren't that far off the mark...

>B. You apparently refuse to believe that humans are inherently evil

But since God created humans, that must be the way he wanted them to be. Unless you're suggesting an all-knowing god didn't forsee that humans would end up being evil from the very milisecond that he first thought about creating them. Or maybe you're suggesting that an all-powerful god was incapable of making perfect creations.

>or that Satan exists

But since God created Satan, that must be the way he wanted him to be. Unless you're suggesting an all-knowing god didn't forsee that Satan would end up being evil from the very milisecond that he first thought about creating him. Or maybe you're suggesting that an all-powerful god was incapable of making perfect creations.

>C. If God did keep all of this evil from happening, he'd pretty much be stripping >every human of his free will, which is a horrendous crime itself.

How could anything God decides to do ever be wrong? I mean is altering people's free will any worse than killing off the entire population of the world except for one family?

>E. God made this universe, and hence knows all of its workings better than >anyone else. You're in no position to tell God what would or would not be a >better way to run things. If I were you, I'd be more humble in the face of such a >powerful mystery.

Humans do things for one of three reasons;

1. As an experiment to find out what will happen. Once the results are known, we don't need to continue experimenting. For example, you already know how gravity works, so you don't go around intentionally dropping things, right? An all-knowing god already has all the answers so he doesn't need to experiment.

2. In order to accomplish something else that you can't do directly. For example, you want to eat, but first you have to make the food and you can't do that until you buy the food, etc. Since God is all-powerful, there's nothing he can't do directly, therefore God doesn't *HAVE* to do anything.

3. For our own amusement. You know what will happen if you toss a ball into the air, and doing so does accomplish anything, but you do it anyway just to amuse yourself. This is probably the only valid reason an all-knowing, all-powerful god would have for doing anything.

So the only conclusion to draw from the above is that the universe is God's version of The Sims and we're all just puppets for him to play with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find that idea kind of insulting.

you have written:"Nevertheless, I prefer the cruel world we have to the plastic perfection we might have if those trans-humanists ever get their way. Think about that."

I think this is what only people can say who already live a good life.Ever been - unemployed for a long time? - begging for food?- working 14 hours a day like the kids in india?- forced to prostitution? ect...

I would prefer even a grey technocratic world were everyone has food and work but is forced to shut up instead of todays world of some rich, many poor and the glorius goal of freedom of speech.

> Again, not too hard: get a young pair of T-rexes, and they'll> fit. Also, there are not "millions" of species unless you count> them the way those evolutionists do, declaring every tiny> genetic variation a new species. By their standards, you and I> are a different species unless we're twins or something. The> pairs in the ark were from every kind of living animal, not> every tiny variation.

So, with this reasoning Noah took just every kind of animal and not every species of animal? You're saying that, technically, there aren't many species, just one kind of each animal? Listen to yourself...look around you. Explain something as simple as spiders to me. A spider is a spider? There's not different species of them? How about birds? No, I guess they're all the same, they just LOOK different. Or perhaps they were the same back in the day and Noah put them on the ark and then since that time, they evolved into...wait, nope...scratch that. Sorry, I said the "E" word. JohnL also brought up some good points about the problems of animals, an ark, and 40 days and nights of rain.

> As with most ignorant atheists, you obviously never actually> read the Bible. As a matter of fact, Genesis is very clear> that incest was not wrong in days before the Mosaic law.> Abraham, the father of the Jews, is even quoted saying on two> separate occasions that Sarah, his wife, was his half sister.> In ancient times, people were different.

Woops, I guess I hit a nerve since you're now resorting to throwing insults. But to address this...Incest WAS ok? Oh, that's so much better. Phew, here I was worried about nothing!

Again, resorting to insults. Not once did I call you a name. As for being a troll, I think it's apparent to most on this board, that I am not a troll, even if I happen to disagree with something.

> B. You apparently refuse to believe that humans are inherently> evil, or that Satan exists, even in the face the very evidence> you've just given for both. Instead, you put the blame on God.> Then you go out and do all kinds of evil yourself, as all of> fallen humanity does. That's why I always suspect an ulterior> motive of people who cite the problem of evil as an excuse for> rejecting God: blaming God for the evil that you and others> like you are doing is disingenuous.

This is just ridiculous ranting. Sure people are evil, where did I say they aren't? And where do you come off saying that I go out and do all kinds of evil? You don't even know me. You got some set on you to accuse me of this. Who's a troll?

With all that other crap you spewed, you never did really address my issue, all you did was dance around the subject much as a politician would when asked something he can't answer...as I suspected would happen. Now, before this gets out of hand, which I believe it already has since you felt the need to resort to name calling and accusing me of being inherently evil and doing bad things...I would like to point out that I have always respected other peoples beliefs even if I don't share their views. But, I have noticed that alot of believers start to get hostile once they find out that your views are different. You've managed to prove that to me once again.

> Wence, if you encourage odinn7 in his trolling, you have no> right to my respect or anyone else's. Behave yourself.

Every one of your "facts" is wrong because they're based on a lot of bad assumptions. First, you're assuming that all of the animals were awake this whole time. The account doesn't give all the details, but obviously God may very well have put the animals in suspended animation. Even if their environments were as diverse back then as they are now (which we have reason to doubt), they would not have needed any special care from Noah.

You should read your histories more carefully as well: even the more ignorant people of past ages would certainly have set their estimate of the number animals higher than "20-30 different types" and being able to write at all in those highly illiterate times was a mark of intelligence and education that shows the writers to have been, at the very least, smarter than most people in their time.

The genetic diversity we've needed to survive in these times is very likely the result of an increasingly diversified environment, so it would not have been necessary until we had such environmental diversity later, by which time, of course, tiny mutations would have provided the genetic diversity to match.

The statistical argument against the downpour of rain assumes even distribution of the rain, that every land mass in the world was as high above sea level as it is now... in short, it assumes a lot of things about the past that just weren't necessarily so. Evolutionists always talk as if everything thousands of years ago would have had to be exactly the way it is now, but there is absolutely no reason to believe so.

Finally, your argument about the atmosphere is bad science, plain and simple: the atmosphere would naturally have risen with the water, so it would not be much thinner at its new altitude than it ever is on the surface of any sea or land mass. Even avowed evolutionists should know that much.

That's a good question, but one you ought to be able to answer pretty easily for yourself: that's art. God does seem to have a flair for theatrics, certainly, which makes sense in view of such omnipotence: infinite power allows for infinite art. Miracles are to this world as the strokes of a paint brush are to a painting. And, of course, one can get a lot more symbolism and messages into art than utility. That's why, as Mel Gibson said a while back, Jesus went through that whole business of suffering and bleeding and dying and resurrection rather than pricking his finger and baptizing all the world with a drop of blood from it.

Absolutes can supercede other absolutes, especially in a world that changes as radically as we creationists believe it has. The command to multiply and fill the earth came thousands of years before the commandment against incest, just as the command to eat only plants came before permission to eat particular kinds of meat and then, in the New Testament, every creature was declared acceptable to eat.

Until God commands us, however, we are to follow the orders given. Since, when God last came to our planet, he not only affirmed the Ten Commandments but augmented them, the people you have mentioned are thoroughly mistaken, if not altogether evil. Again, neither you nor any other mortal knows how to run the universe better than its maker, so you have neither the power nor the authority to make new moral rules.

To the contrary, since one of God's perfections is His free will, any perfect image of God made of Himself would have to include this paradoxical perfection to suit God's desires. What exactly God hopes to achieve by doing things this way is a mystery, it's true, but if God weren't a mystery, He wouldn't be God.

Angels are the same as humans in this respect, so again I am suggesting nothing of the sort. If you want examples of perfect creations that do freely choose the good every time, there they are. Since God has resolved the paradox of free will for them, I am confident that He will do the same for me.

I've heard the Jainists mention four, but I haven't studied them enough to know what the four are, so I'll go with your three.

<1. As an experiment to find out what will happen. Once the results are known, we don't need to continue experimenting. For example, you already know how gravity works, so you don't go around intentionally dropping things, right? An all-knowing god already has all the answers so he doesn't need to experiment.>

True, although we don't really understand gravity as well as you seem to think we do.

<2. In order to accomplish something else that you can't do directly. For example, you want to eat, but first you have to make the food and you can't do that until you buy the food, etc. Since God is all-powerful, there's nothing he can't do directly, therefore God doesn't *HAVE* to do anything.>

Also true: God acts as directly or indirectly as He pleases.

<3. For our own amusement. You know what will happen if you toss a ball into the air, and doing so does[n't] accomplish anything, but you do it anyway just to amuse yourself. This is probably the only valid reason an all-knowing, all-powerful god would have for doing anything.>

Not quite true, but in view of our limited understanding, it will have to do for an analogy. When given the choice between doing what suits Him and what suits us, God always does what suits Him. I wouldn't say God hasn't accomplished anything, though. (It's art, remember?)

A fair analogy, but analogies always have their limitations. Again, it's art, though even "art" is an inadequate description. I certainly accept that computer games are a form of art.

Of course you do. You think you know how to run the universe better than God, so you find God's presence intolerable; so intolerable, in fact, that you try to persuade yourself that your rival doesn't exist. God surely finds your arrogance just as insulting, but I wouldn't be surprised if He finds you amusing, too: there's a kind of black humor in the folly of those who choose their own worthless schemes over the only scheme that could possibly matter.

"Nevertheless, I prefer the cruel world we have to the plastic perfection we might have if those trans-humanists ever get their way. Think about that."

I think this is what only people can say who already live a good life.Ever been- unemployed for a long time?- begging for food?- working 14 hours a day like the kids in india?- forced to prostitution? ect...>

I have been unemployed a long time, and I live with the very real possibility that I may soon be a homeless man starving on the street, and I have suffered a steady stream of petty cruelties of the "death of a hundred small cuts" variety.

More importantly, I have seen on several occasions that I have enough intellect that if I so chose, I could be one of the technocratic tyrants I just told you about and live a life of ecstatic happiness while toying with the lives of others, especially my enemies, such as you.

All the same, I've chosen God. Others (notably Job) suffered more than I did from both cruelty and temptation, and they chose God too. God Himself came down to earth as Jesus and suffered a steady stream of torture ending in a very slow and humiliating death; quite possibly, sadists, prostitutes, and homosexuals stood in the crowd and leered at his exposed genitals and the blood dripping off of him as he died. On the basis of these examples, your argument condemns you.

And so we part ways: I've chosen God, and you've chosen to be a clockwork orange. The believers in god-like aliens may be foolish for expecting real extraterrestrials to be that way, but at least they knew to look elsewhere than to sinful humanity for the answers. They'll be better off than you on Judgement Day.

You probably don't think it will be so terrible to have your body torn from your soul since you apparently don't believe in your soul, but you've made a terrible mistake. You'll have no excuse when you stand before God, for you rejected Him for allowing cruelty, and then publicly embraced the cruelty He allowed.

By the way, a word of warning from an experienced sinner like yourself: from now on, if you should ever start to decry censorship, what you just said about free speech will be hanging over your head.

Nowone ever cared about democracy as long as he was struggling for the material base for survival...Ok, you will say Jesus did, because heÂ´s the son of God and he wanted to free us from sin or whatever...

If my opinion will be "hanging over my had" - who cares... me not! Because I know the history of christianity good enough and I can expect that, if hell exists, I will meet nearly all popes and missionaries and prophets and religios leaders of christianity there!!!

If you need examples, look what have done some popes, likeJohannes XII, Innozenz VIII, Alexander VI and many others...

Hm... maybe you call yourself an evangelical, puritan or something, so you will argue youÂ´re not catholic therefore not interested on popes but there is a little problem:

In your strictly religious logic: - god wanted (until Luther and the break of christiandom into two branches) a united church with popes at their head; he wanted this at least until 1517; and remember: popes are the followers of "Petrus" in the "patrimonium petri"...

So I recommend you to read some info about popes and you see what godÂ´s "representatives" were thinking about free speech and the ten commandmends...

And another thing:You call me materialist, Jesus-hater or else... Ok, but as long as I am not a fanatic like you, itÂ´s all right! You should re-think your religious logic because, from the religious standpoint it seems to be your personal interpretation. You say that god wanted, did, thaught, made something because of this or that - you interprete, thatÂ´s all...

What reality? You haven't presented me with any reality at all. You're the one who believes that the whole amazingly complicated universe just created itself somehow, remember?

People aren't necessarily into the finer points of politics (such as the distinction between freedom, liberty, a democracy, and a republic), but they have always cared about being free to do what they want. The poorest street urchin still values his freedom and gives it up only begrudgingly. It's fools and intellectuals (considered the same thing in Russia) who think people only pursue their material interests, and who willingly trade their freedom for dubious promises of security from tyrants.

I will also point to Socrates, who chose death over retracting his philosophy, to the numerous Christians who chose Rome's many hair-raising atrocities against them over recanting their faith, and to many, Christian and non-Christian alike, who resisted murderous utopian schemes from the days of the ancients right up to the present as examples of people for whom liberty, justice, and Truth were all more important than their material and physical well-being.

s leaders of [C]hristianity there!!!>

Considering how many ignorant arguments you've raised against Christianity already, it's obvious that you don't know your history very well at all, except for what little you picked up while looking for ways to hit religious believers over the head with the sins of other people. This will doubtless be another of the proofs on Judgement Day that you have no excuse for yourself: that you think you can distract me, let alone someone as attentive as God, from your folly with tales of notorious sinners.

While you are wrong in thinking that "most" of these people are going to Hell, it's true an enormous number of them are: crooked popes, murderous missionaries, false prophets, and the lying religious leaders are all going to Hell. Whether you'll "meet" them there remains open to interpretation: the Scriptures are not clear on whether people in Hell are all alone in separate cells or are all thrown in together. Given how easy it is for people to be alone in a crowd, I can believe the one scenario as easily as the other. Either way, you can count on ending up all alone with someone just like yourself, which should be quite a fitting punishment. There's no reason to believe Hell is partitioned, but if it were, I'm guessing you'd end up with evil missionaries, since you're a missionary for damnation every time you go out of your way to mock the Truth and those who seek it.

Again, what does that have to do with you? Or with me, for that matter? Even if every professed Christian in the world (let alone the popes) were utterly phony and a thoroughly evil thieving raping mass-murderer, you would still have no excuse for ignoring the Truth when it's presented to you. Some have gone to Heaven by accepting and practicing the teachings of lying missionaries who went to Hell because they didn't believe the Truth they were teaching.

In fact, I am Protestant and generally evangelical, so I don't particularly believe in papal infallibility. By the looks of things, though, the only problem is with you, who think accusations are a substitute for honest contentions.

-[G]od wanted (until Luther and the break of christiandom into two branches) a united church with popes at their head; he wanted this at least until 1517;and remember: popes are the followers of "Petrus" in the "patrimonium petri"...>

Wrong. What God always wanted, and has always wanted, as stated repeatedly in the Scriptures, is for people to repent and believe, whether through Peter, or Paul, or Barnabas, or James, or the rest of the disciples, or the bishops, or the priests, or through popes, or through the reformers, or common believers, or just through anyone who would teach the Truth, honestly or not. Considering that you've just said you know I may not be Roman Catholic, what did you think you'd accomplish throwing Roman Catholic misinterpretations of the Bible that I don't believe in at me? You're not even very good at distracting people.

Again, that's no excuse for you. Why should I even bother telling you tales of notorious "representatives" of your religion(s) when you're as evil a representative as any I've met? What better punishment can anyone possibly devise than forcing you to be with someone like yourself for all eternity?

You call me materialist, Jesus-hater or [something] else... Ok, but as long as I am not a fanatic like you, itÂ´s all right!>

Given your obvious fanatical hatred for "religion" in general and Christianity specifically, you must really have a problem with yourself. I bet even now you're wishing you could let go of your hatred. But you can't, can you? That's God's art for you, Wence: life would be no fun if it weren't for extremes. Why fight inevitability? If accepting extremes makes me a fanatic, so be it. I'd rather love and hate than be indifferent.

You say that god wanted, did, thaught [sic], made something because of this or that - you interprete[t], thatÂ´s all...>

No Christian is an island, even in my situation. I have the Bible and all of the scholarly works of those who've tried to interpret it in the past, as well as numerous books of history to confirm its uniqueness and accuracy. I have what God says in that Bible concerning His motives, along with its warnings that some of God's motives are necessarily a mystery. As such, none of this is merely my personal interpretation; it's well-confirmed doctrine based on careful reading and analysis.

Logic is just a tool. It only needs to be mastered, not rethought. What you need is not better logic (though you should try to master the rules of logic,) but better premises and a desire to know the truth in place of your desire to sound clever at someone's expense. It's somewhat useful to me to defend my beliefs from time to time, but by the looks of things, you have nothing worth defending because your life is empty and meaningless. No wonder you throw your freedoms away so carelessly!

Me, I've got a life, a future, and bright hope for that future, however dark it may turn out to be. What've you got?

Yes, probably it's best to let it go at that. We're each "hardliners" for our own position. You see, though, don't you, what stake people have in believing in aliens? If any space aliens ever do turn up, you can just bet there'll be an uproar in the philosophy and religion departments (my favorite hangouts, back in the day) on every campus.

A relevant book that comes to mind is a book of short stories called "How to Save The World" that had a rather interesting foreword about space aliens. The editor's idea was that though space aliens might indeed have some good advice for us, it would turn out to be good only for the same reason that any human's advice might be good: because they'd see the situation, but not be emotionally involved. (Also, a great many people would be willing to try their suggestions where they wouldn't try the same suggestions from other humans because they doubt each other's motives.)

Until then, he goes on to say, here are a couple of stories about how humans might solve the problems themselves... or not. (Some of the tales included the problems that might arise from some of the suggested solutions to the world's problems.) I recommend the book to anyone.